All fair and unbiased articles end the way that one does.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
All fair and unbiased articles end the way that one does.
Your right.... They should have said only roughing 75% are like that
el retorno
Member
Medicare for all is gonna be the call. We're never gonna realize what we're asking for is socialized medicine. People are gonna be feed up with rising costs and ask why the hell does their grandmother get it but not them.
At least that's what I hope.
People are also dumb as bricks so I have little hope for this.
I think this and then I remember that "get the government out of my Medicare" sign. People are really stupid and very easily swayed.
el retorno
Member
That's kind of what I insinuated (though I don't think people are dumb just that they tend to fall into following others if their slogans are catchy, see the current GOP)
If a campaign takes up the issue at the right time (higher costs and deteriorating care) I don't see why I should be domed for failure and I think framing it as medicare for all would force opponents to at the same time attack medicare.
Medicare for all is going to effectively eliminate an entire industry, a very profitable one.
This is not going to be an easy fight.
el retorno
Member
Never said easy but just they way I think its going to go.
They'll still be private care just not the giant it is today. And like I said if you take if from the medicare angle your forcing you opponent to attack medicare which isn't a popular thing for policiticans to do (the the GOP is starting to feel more confortable with it)
I'm also talking 20-30 years from now. By 2030 - 2035 we'll have single payer or something like it
It would also eliminate a huge burden placed on businesses. We just got a notice that our premiums are going up 18% at my job and my coverage is AWFUL. Health care costs are eating up growth in a lot of companies.
Oh, I'm an avid supporter of a single payer system, don't get me wrong.
It's just that the fight against Obamacare is nothing compared to the fight you'll get against a single payer system.
There was no business interests really opposing Obamacare, and pretty much all of the health industry supported it.
This?
Insurance companies are going to put everything against it, and they have a lot of money.
empty vessel
Member
Not health care companies. Ha.
Hence why demands from voters are needed. Politicians have to be more afraid of defying the vocal demands of voters than of the business interests on the other side. This is pretty much the case for any policy change affecting business.
el retorno
Member
I hate the assertion that more money = win. And there will be a lot of groups fighting for single payer.
I just don't think its true.
One of those times where I actually agree with you. Voters still control if they get to keep their seat.
From the Texas GOP platform: American English - We support adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States.
What is American-English versus say English?
Document for those interested: http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012-Platform-Final.pdf
What is American-English versus say English?
Document for those interested: http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012-Platform-Final.pdf
Indeed.
If the mandate falls, I think (hope?) this will be the liberal battle cry moving forward.
And that's a good thing.
I never said that.
There's no business interest that directly benefit from a single payer.
And generally, advocacy groups cannot muster the capital that business interests can, even in the pre-citizen united world.
Well, fuck.
My understanding is that American English includes the word "apartment"
empty vessel
Member
It also omits bollocks.
The use of lifts, torches, crumpets, and lorries will be outlawed!
If we ban torches what will we burn teh gehs with?
Pitchforks only, no burning.
Wouldn't the free market solve that?
Right. And a national program leverages the power of the federal government to maximize efficiency. Moreover, it provides a uniform level of care.
State Republican platforms are a certifiable source of hilarity.
Frank the Great
Banned
if obamacare is upheld, including the grants to states to develop alternative universal health care systems, then i fully support a state-by-state approach to single-payer. the federal government would provide the $$$, and the sane states can follow vermont's model.
the only downside i see (compared to national single player) is varying levels of care. BUT we have that anyway. and it is a much more realistic scenario for the sane states to just go ahead and adopt their own single payer systems, because it's impossible to get things done at the federal level nowadays.
so i am totally ok with the state approach to single player. the states that don't want it, won't have it.
the only downside i see (compared to national single player) is varying levels of care. BUT we have that anyway. and it is a much more realistic scenario for the sane states to just go ahead and adopt their own single payer systems, because it's impossible to get things done at the federal level nowadays.
so i am totally ok with the state approach to single player. the states that don't want it, won't have it.
No way does congress fund that.
Frank the Great
Banned
i'm pretty sure that obamacare includes grants to states to fund alternative means of attaining UHC. hence vermont's proposal.
Right, and if ObamaCare is upheld, I expect Congress to use their budgetary control to make sure those grants are not funded.
SouthernDragon
Member
It's inefficient.
P.S. Taiwan has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. They sent out an expert team to review healthcare systems from developed nations, and the one they largely based it off of was... Medicare in the United States. They added in some stuff from Canada and some European countries, but it's largely Medicare for all.
The Librarian
Banned
It's inefficient.
P.S. Taiwan has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. They sent out an expert team to review healthcare systems from developed nations, and the one they largely based it off of was... Medicare in the United States. They added in some stuff from Canada and some European countries, but it's largely Medicare for all.
IIRC, the dude who designed Taiwan's healthcare system was hired to design and recommend the best system for Vermont.
#TheMoreYouKnow
Trading lungs is true love.
Yup. Less that 12 hours to go. I'm actually slightly optimistic the mandate will survive. I have nothing to justify that, but it's just a gut feeling I have.
In any case, tomorrow will be exciting from a political and legal perspective. If the mandate survives, the rightwing machine's response will be epic and I will be on every conservative site and blog I can find to see them rage.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Mandate and the Medicaid expansion will be shit canned. Obama's campaign won't recover
Then Romney will repass most of the bill next year and be praised
Then Romney will repass most of the bill next year and be praised
As if politicians are ever held accountable for what they said in the past.
You mean if they strike it down? If they strike the whole thing down, you're screwed. If they only strike down the mandate, you're OK until the insurance lobby gets Congress to gut all the nice things like that, and then you'll be screwed.
Immediately for the first one?
Might as well: I predict a 6-3 upheld ruling for the health care law. Confidence is low, but I can't get myself to imagine the mandate going; the fallout - in policy, not just political - would be enormous. It would blow up the healthcare system. Or rather, speed up the rate at which it's blowing up. I suppose there could be an upside to that, but such an upside depends on a sane Congressional response (single-payer), when such is not likely.
Busy vacationing so I'm largely out of the loop on political developments lately. Back to Disneyland on the same day as the SCOTUS ruling. Tomorrow should be fun.
Busy vacationing so I'm largely out of the loop on political developments lately. Back to Disneyland on the same day as the SCOTUS ruling. Tomorrow should be fun.
Not necessarily since insurance companies (and employers probably?) could willingly keep it but you would be up to their discretion.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Prediction: 5-4 ruling against the mandate, Roberts writing the majority opinion.
Wat?
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
AWESOME I CAN'T WAIT FOR TOMORROW
Same. No way his court ushers in the era of federally mandated purchases.
blah blah blah it will only be for healthcare, Yeah, the new power won't be abused. Just check out Kelo!
MonkeyKing
Member
I'm going to bet against my better judgement and see if they surprise me.
6-3 upholding the law, with bitter dissent from Scalia. Even though I think this court is nakedly partisan, I'm still having trouble believing they would want the fallout from scraping health care reform in this way.
6-3 upholding the law, with bitter dissent from Scalia. Even though I think this court is nakedly partisan, I'm still having trouble believing they would want the fallout from scraping health care reform in this way.
PhoenixDark
Banned
All this talk about Roberts and the legacy he wants to leave completely ignores the fact that he's a conservative judge. Why would he or any conservative judge want to leave a legacy of ushering in a new age of federally mandated control by the government? There are ways to uphold the mandate while limiting its scope (they might even rule it's technically not a mandate since the punishment is so miniscule), but I don't expect any mincing of words tomorrow.
I also think the Medicaid expansion could be overturned.
Obama will have wasted his entire presidency for nothing.
I know you are trolling but he is not just a Conservative Judge, he is the head of the Court which takes more weight then just left and right. On an issue this big I just can't see a 5-4 along party lines decision. He will want to be in the majority to make a statement.
I project a 7-2 ruling affirming the mandate with Scalia and Alito dissenting.
While coverage of Syria has understandably dominated foreign affairs coverage, the situation in Yemen remains precarious. This week scholars from the Atlantic Council and POMED submitted a letter, which will undoubtedly be ignored as all public letters are, to President Obama this week urging him to recalibrate our current strategy. They highlighted many of the deficiencies with our current policy that I've previously enunciated. Primarily, our myopic focus on counter-terrorism and, essentially, attempting to engage militants in a war of attrition instead of addressing the broader issues which allow the militants to flourish. Of course, they touch on the trite establishment policies that are of relatively little import. But one issue they mention, which is paramount, is improving food insecurity and water mismanagement which are already compounding current problems.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Which is why he will be in the majority (5) to make a statement
But really, what fallout would impact the court? What repercussions could they really receive? 50% of the country hating them (that's being generous; probably more like 45%)? Well, the other 50% will just love them and call them saviors!
It's clear this court is an embarrassment, and many of their rulings have been shockingly partisan nonsense, but that's the point... they don't give a fuck.
- Status